And when the first impression isn't the one that sticks? A teaching case about the public administration bidding and contracting process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2238-104X.2025v15n2.71018Keywords:
Public administration, Public procurement, Stakeholders, Bidding, ContractionsAbstract
Case context: This case explores the application of stakeholder theory within the context of public procurement. Stakeholder theory is a management approach that emphasizes the importance of addressing the interests of all groups affected by an organization’s decisions and activities. In public procurement, this perspective is crucial to ensure transparency, efficiency, and fairness in the use of public resources. Case Dilemma: The proposed dilemma invites the reader to step into the shoes of the case's protagonist and reflect on the challenges of balancing diverse and often conflicting interests among the various stakeholders involved in the procurement process. The complexity increases with the need to ensure that contracting is carried out in an effective, fair, and efficient manner. While analyzing procurement procedures, the purchasing unit coordinator uncovers a series of underlying issues. It becomes evident that stakeholders — such as requesting departments, technical teams, managers, suppliers, and end users — hold different expectations, needs, uncertainties, and frustrations, and are subject to institutional pressures. Their views on the problem diverge, revealing an environment marked by tensions, asymmetrical perceptions, communication gaps, and lack of cooperation — all compounded by the absence of updated internal guidelines. Case closure: Based on the analysis of the dilemma, the reader is expected to suggest strategies that the protagonist should adopt to address the challenges among stakeholders.
Downloads
References
Araújo, G. B. P., & de Sousa Lemos, L. B. (2020). A Gestão de Compras Públicas: um Estudo de Caso da Central de Compras do Distrito Federal. Teoria e Prática em Administração, 10(2), 124-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.21714/2238-104X2020v10i2-51188
Araujo, M. M. D., Jhunior, R. D. O. S., Uchoa, M. T., & Boaventura, J. M. G. (2024). Distribuição de valor para os stakeholders: Um estudo sobre poder e importância estratégica na Bolsa de Valores de Toronto. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 64(4), e2023-0116. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020240405x
Bleda, M., & Chicot, J. (2020). The role of public procurement in the formation of markets for innovation. Journal of Business Research, 107, 186-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.032
Brickson, S. L. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of management review, 32(3), 864-888. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275679
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York, USA: Russell Sage Foundation.
Capen, E. C., Clapp, R. V., & Campbell, W. M. (1971). Competitive bidding in high-risk situations. Journal of petroleum technology, 23(6), 641-653.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. https://doi.org/10.2307/258888
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. UK: Cambridge University Press
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. USA: Yale University Press.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. UK: Cambridge university press.
Galego-Álvarez, I., Formigoni, H., & Antunes, M. T. P. (2014). Corporate social responsibility practices at Brazilian firms. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 54(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020140103
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 31(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.801
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business ethics quarterly, 23(1), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20132314
Lei 14.133, de 1º de abril de 2021. (2021). Lei de Licitações e Contratos Administrativos. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/lei/L14133.htm.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
Moreira, D. C., de Vargas, S. G., & Battistella, L. F. (2023). Espiritualidade no Trabalho: Um Modelo de Mensuração para Organizações Públicas Brasileiras. Administração Pública e Gestão Social, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.21118/apgs.v15i1.13821
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage publications.
Signor, R., Love, P. E., Vallim, J. J. C., Raupp, A. B., & Olatunji, O. (2019). It is not collusion unless you get caught: the case of ‘Operation Car Wash’and unearthing of a Cartel. Journal of antitrust enforcement, 7(2), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnz009
Singulano, Y. L., Castelari, M. C. F., & Emmendoerfer, M. L. (2022). Terceirização de serviços públicos: reflexões de um metaestudo. Revista Direito e Práxis, 13(2), 1041-1073. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8966/2020/54155
Phillips, R. A., Berman, S. L., Elms, H., & Johnson-Cramer, M. E. (2010). Strategy, stakeholders and managerial discretion. Strategic organization, 8(2), 176-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127010365721
Zhang, J., Wu, Q., Miao, D., Yan, X., & Peng, J. (2014). The impact of core self-evaluations on job satisfaction: The mediator role of career commitment. Social Indicators Research, 116, 809-822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0328-5

